ArticleCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy2022
Comparing patient outcomes following minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting surgery
Article in Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adding the patient perspective: the necessity of patient reported outcomes in cardiac surgery clinical trials.Current opinion in cardiology · 2025Review
- New Clinical Advances in Minimally Invasive Coronary Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Enhanced Recovery and Reduced Complications with Minimally Invasive Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Compared to Open Sternotomy.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2025Article
- Comparing the Effectiveness of Open and Minimally Invasive Approaches in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Systematic Review.Clinics and practice · 2024Review
- Minimally Invasive Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in a Low-Risk Asian Cohort: A Propensity-Score Matched Study.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This present research was designed for comparing coronary artery disease (CAD) patient outcomes following minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (MICS) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods: From 2014-2017, 679 CAD patients underwent MICS (n=281) or CABG (n=398) and were evaluated for the present study. Patient data were analyzed using 1:1 propensity score-matched assessment and a multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model, and primary study achievements comprised major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death, heart failure (HF), revascularization, and stroke. The median follow-up period was 2.68 years. Results: CABG patients exhibited a trend towards higher cumulative overall rates of MACCEs at 2 years (CABG: 6.2% Conclusions: Follow-up data indicated that the MICS and CABG treatments could achieve similar outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.